Comments

Voice-of-reality
4:31pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Cameron's 'change of heart' has little to do with actually supporting the measure - it is more about the parliamentary timetable. In a situation in which the coalition in broken down with the Lib Dems blocking any overtly Conservative policy and v.v., the PM has to find a series of issues with which to fill parliamentary time - as the government cannot be seen to do absolutely nothing for two years - it is of course mandated to stay in power for the full five years. In reality, of course, that is precisely what is happening - as no 'pressing' policy initiatives can be initiated as a consequence of the voting deadlock between the parties. Expect therefore two years of 'fringe' policies - smoking, devolution, gay marriage - all issues that in one sense are unimportant (though paradoxically also fundamental from constitutional and liberty viewpoints) as a consequence of the two warring factions of government being unable to 'come together' to actually address the non-fringe issues that actually matter; such as the economy and the need to cut the welfare bill so that the country can afford to live. The effect of both the coalition and the fixed-term initiatives has been to introduce into the Westminster model a form of the 'lame duck' - that vexatious of issues that permeates the American model of democracy.

Cameron's 'change of heart' has little to do with actually supporting the measure - it is more about the parliamentary timetable. In a situation in which the coalition in broken down with the Lib Dems blocking any overtly Conservative policy and v.v., the PM has to find a series of issues with which to fill parliamentary time - as the government cannot be seen to do absolutely nothing for two years - it is of course mandated to stay in power for the full five years. In reality, of course, that is precisely what is happening - as no 'pressing' policy initiatives can be initiated as a consequence of the voting deadlock between the parties. Expect therefore two years of 'fringe' policies - smoking, devolution, gay marriage - all issues that in one sense are unimportant (though paradoxically also fundamental from constitutional and liberty viewpoints) as a consequence of the two warring factions of government being unable to 'come together' to actually address the non-fringe issues that actually matter; such as the economy and the need to cut the welfare bill so that the country can afford to live. The effect of both the coalition and the fixed-term initiatives has been to introduce into the Westminster model a form of the 'lame duck' - that vexatious of issues that permeates the American model of democracy.Voice-of-reality

Cameron's 'change of heart' has little to do with actually supporting the measure - it is more about the parliamentary timetable. In a situation in which the coalition in broken down with the Lib Dems blocking any overtly Conservative policy and v.v., the PM has to find a series of issues with which to fill parliamentary time - as the government cannot be seen to do absolutely nothing for two years - it is of course mandated to stay in power for the full five years. In reality, of course, that is precisely what is happening - as no 'pressing' policy initiatives can be initiated as a consequence of the voting deadlock between the parties. Expect therefore two years of 'fringe' policies - smoking, devolution, gay marriage - all issues that in one sense are unimportant (though paradoxically also fundamental from constitutional and liberty viewpoints) as a consequence of the two warring factions of government being unable to 'come together' to actually address the non-fringe issues that actually matter; such as the economy and the need to cut the welfare bill so that the country can afford to live. The effect of both the coalition and the fixed-term initiatives has been to introduce into the Westminster model a form of the 'lame duck' - that vexatious of issues that permeates the American model of democracy.

Score: 1

behonest
4:34pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Yet another Tory u-turn. They are utterly clueless.

Yet another Tory u-turn. They are utterly clueless.behonest

Yet another Tory u-turn. They are utterly clueless.

Score: 0

Copley23
4:36pm Wed 27 Feb 13

I'll just bend over and they can wipe my backside whilst they are at it.

I'll just bend over and they can wipe my backside whilst they are at it.Copley23

I'll just bend over and they can wipe my backside whilst they are at it.

Score: 1

battboy77
5:25pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Voice-of-reality wrote…

Cameron's 'change of heart' has little to do with actually supporting the measure - it is more about the parliamentary timetable. In a situation in which the coalition in broken down with the Lib Dems blocking any overtly Conservative policy and v.v., the PM has to find a series of issues with which to fill parliamentary time - as the government cannot be seen to do absolutely nothing for two years - it is of course mandated to stay in power for the full five years. In reality, of course, that is precisely what is happening - as no 'pressing' policy initiatives can be initiated as a consequence of the voting deadlock between the parties. Expect therefore two years of 'fringe' policies - smoking, devolution, gay marriage - all issues that in one sense are unimportant (though paradoxically also fundamental from constitutional and liberty viewpoints) as a consequence of the two warring factions of government being unable to 'come together' to actually address the non-fringe issues that actually matter; such as the economy and the need to cut the welfare bill so that the country can afford to live. The effect of both the coalition and the fixed-term initiatives has been to introduce into the Westminster model a form of the 'lame duck' - that vexatious of issues that permeates the American model of democracy.

Yeah thanks for all that!!!!!!! cant you just be glad for a positive move towards this type of ban without all that ramble???

[quote][p][bold]Voice-of-reality[/bold] wrote:
Cameron's 'change of heart' has little to do with actually supporting the measure - it is more about the parliamentary timetable. In a situation in which the coalition in broken down with the Lib Dems blocking any overtly Conservative policy and v.v., the PM has to find a series of issues with which to fill parliamentary time - as the government cannot be seen to do absolutely nothing for two years - it is of course mandated to stay in power for the full five years. In reality, of course, that is precisely what is happening - as no 'pressing' policy initiatives can be initiated as a consequence of the voting deadlock between the parties. Expect therefore two years of 'fringe' policies - smoking, devolution, gay marriage - all issues that in one sense are unimportant (though paradoxically also fundamental from constitutional and liberty viewpoints) as a consequence of the two warring factions of government being unable to 'come together' to actually address the non-fringe issues that actually matter; such as the economy and the need to cut the welfare bill so that the country can afford to live. The effect of both the coalition and the fixed-term initiatives has been to introduce into the Westminster model a form of the 'lame duck' - that vexatious of issues that permeates the American model of democracy.[/p][/quote]Yeah thanks for all that!!!!!!! cant you just be glad for a positive move towards this type of ban without all that ramble???battboy77

Voice-of-reality wrote…

Cameron's 'change of heart' has little to do with actually supporting the measure - it is more about the parliamentary timetable. In a situation in which the coalition in broken down with the Lib Dems blocking any overtly Conservative policy and v.v., the PM has to find a series of issues with which to fill parliamentary time - as the government cannot be seen to do absolutely nothing for two years - it is of course mandated to stay in power for the full five years. In reality, of course, that is precisely what is happening - as no 'pressing' policy initiatives can be initiated as a consequence of the voting deadlock between the parties. Expect therefore two years of 'fringe' policies - smoking, devolution, gay marriage - all issues that in one sense are unimportant (though paradoxically also fundamental from constitutional and liberty viewpoints) as a consequence of the two warring factions of government being unable to 'come together' to actually address the non-fringe issues that actually matter; such as the economy and the need to cut the welfare bill so that the country can afford to live. The effect of both the coalition and the fixed-term initiatives has been to introduce into the Westminster model a form of the 'lame duck' - that vexatious of issues that permeates the American model of democracy.

Yeah thanks for all that!!!!!!! cant you just be glad for a positive move towards this type of ban without all that ramble???

Score: 0

Voice-of-reality
5:55pm Wed 27 Feb 13

In direct answer 'no'. The whole point is that this is not a positive move - it is nothing of the sort. Had Cameron pledged legislative support in the form of a government sponsored bill or even a consultative green paper then that would have been a 'positive move' (if one agrees with the proposal). Pledging merely to 'look at it' is a promise to do absolutely nothing and without specific party backing such a proposed ban will not materialise. Thus, not a ramble, but a comment upon the absolute 'nothingness' that has actually been agreed to by the PM.

In direct answer 'no'. The whole point is that this is not a positive move - it is nothing of the sort. Had Cameron pledged legislative support in the form of a government sponsored bill or even a consultative green paper then that would have been a 'positive move' (if one agrees with the proposal). Pledging merely to 'look at it' is a promise to do absolutely nothing and without specific party backing such a proposed ban will not materialise. Thus, not a ramble, but a comment upon the absolute 'nothingness' that has actually been agreed to by the PM.Voice-of-reality

In direct answer 'no'. The whole point is that this is not a positive move - it is nothing of the sort. Had Cameron pledged legislative support in the form of a government sponsored bill or even a consultative green paper then that would have been a 'positive move' (if one agrees with the proposal). Pledging merely to 'look at it' is a promise to do absolutely nothing and without specific party backing such a proposed ban will not materialise. Thus, not a ramble, but a comment upon the absolute 'nothingness' that has actually been agreed to by the PM.

Score: 0

NO EINSTEIN
7:12pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Any one who smokes in cars with anyone should be fined, its mild ABH if not worse......

Any one who smokes in cars with anyone should be fined, its mild ABH if not worse......NO EINSTEIN

Any one who smokes in cars with anyone should be fined, its mild ABH if not worse......

Score: -1

your joking
8:40pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Its funny this should come up today. I was in my car waiting at traffic lights and looked in my rear view mirror. In the car behind me was a young woman with a child who looked under 3 in the front passenger seat (no car seat or booster) who was smoking inside the car. I have to be honest and say I was shocked that the female adult either wasn't aware of the danger or wasn't bothered about the effects the smoke could have on the child passenger. I did discuss this with my husband and noted how times have changed. As an ex smoker myself I have to admit that 20 years ago I wouldn't have thought twice about doing the same thing as the young girl. I am better educated these days and realise the harm I could bestow on my passengers. I gave up smoking about 8 years ago but obviously as today proves some people just couldn't care less what damage they do to children. I'm all for banning people from smoking in cars when they have passengers. smoke to your hearts content when you are on your own or Adult smokers but not when children are in the car

Its funny this should come up today. I was in my car waiting at traffic lights and looked in my rear view mirror. In the car behind me was a young woman with a child who looked under 3 in the front passenger seat (no car seat or booster) who was smoking inside the car. I have to be honest and say I was shocked that the female adult either wasn't aware of the danger or wasn't bothered about the effects the smoke could have on the child passenger. I did discuss this with my husband and noted how times have changed. As an ex smoker myself I have to admit that 20 years ago I wouldn't have thought twice about doing the same thing as the young girl. I am better educated these days and realise the harm I could bestow on my passengers. I gave up smoking about 8 years ago but obviously as today proves some people just couldn't care less what damage they do to children. I'm all for banning people from smoking in cars when they have passengers. smoke to your hearts content when you are on your own or Adult smokers but not when children are in the caryour joking

Its funny this should come up today. I was in my car waiting at traffic lights and looked in my rear view mirror. In the car behind me was a young woman with a child who looked under 3 in the front passenger seat (no car seat or booster) who was smoking inside the car. I have to be honest and say I was shocked that the female adult either wasn't aware of the danger or wasn't bothered about the effects the smoke could have on the child passenger. I did discuss this with my husband and noted how times have changed. As an ex smoker myself I have to admit that 20 years ago I wouldn't have thought twice about doing the same thing as the young girl. I am better educated these days and realise the harm I could bestow on my passengers. I gave up smoking about 8 years ago but obviously as today proves some people just couldn't care less what damage they do to children. I'm all for banning people from smoking in cars when they have passengers. smoke to your hearts content when you are on your own or Adult smokers but not when children are in the car

Score: -1

Parmenion
10:57pm Wed 27 Feb 13

I wonder if there is any constitutional right to be a moron?
It's a rhetorical question, but let's get to the facts...

The idea that there is no safe level of secondhand smoke turned the laws of science on their head. The first rule of toxicology is that the dose makes the poison. All substances are toxic at high enough levels just as they are harmless, even beneficial, at lower levels.

Most of us understand that coffee contains benzene, water contains arsenic and that televisions pump out radiation but we don't let it worry us since the levels of these highly carcinogenic toxins are too low to pose a threat to our health. Apparently only one substance disobeys this law of toxicology: secondhand smoke.

"As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.

I wonder if there is any constitutional right to be a moron?
It's a rhetorical question, but let's get to the facts...
The idea that there is no safe level of secondhand smoke turned the laws of science on their head. The first rule of toxicology is that the dose makes the poison. All substances are toxic at high enough levels just as they are harmless, even beneficial, at lower levels.
Most of us understand that coffee contains benzene, water contains arsenic and that televisions pump out radiation but we don't let it worry us since the levels of these highly carcinogenic toxins are too low to pose a threat to our health. Apparently only one substance disobeys this law of toxicology: secondhand smoke.
"As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.Parmenion

I wonder if there is any constitutional right to be a moron?
It's a rhetorical question, but let's get to the facts...

The idea that there is no safe level of secondhand smoke turned the laws of science on their head. The first rule of toxicology is that the dose makes the poison. All substances are toxic at high enough levels just as they are harmless, even beneficial, at lower levels.

Most of us understand that coffee contains benzene, water contains arsenic and that televisions pump out radiation but we don't let it worry us since the levels of these highly carcinogenic toxins are too low to pose a threat to our health. Apparently only one substance disobeys this law of toxicology: secondhand smoke.

"As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about the editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here